Participation in practiseLessons from the FAO People's Participation Programme

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Communication Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to copyright@fao.org

1. Introduction

Rural development efforts have failed to deliver on their promises. An
evaluation found that half of rural development projects funded by the World
Bank in Africa were outright failures. A review of assistance to agricultural
cooperatives reported similar results. A study by the International Labour
Organisation of "poverty-oriented" projects worldwide showed that
the poorest were excluded from activities and benefits.

The limits of "conventional" projects

How do some conventional projects discriminate against the poor? A classic example comes from Nigeria, where a large scale agricultural development project channeled assistance to "progressive" farmers and chose to work through the existing socio-economic structure, assuming that this would win local cooperation.
Result: subsidized credit to buy tractors and pay for labour and fertilizer helped to create a small class of "overnight farmers", mainly wealthy city dwellers. Most inputs went to richer landowners, while subsidized fertilizer encouraged farmers to abandon traditional manuring practices. And none of this led to production increases: per hectare yields of staple crops was the same for project participants and non-participants.

What has gone wrong? Recent years have seen growing criticism of rural development
strategies followed, with only minor adjustments, since the 1960s.
These conventional strategies have seen development primarily as a series
of technical transfers aimed at boosting production and generating wealth.
In practice, conventional projects usually target medium to large scale
"progressive" producers, supporting them with technology, credit
and extension advice in the hope that improvements will gradually extend
to more "backward" strata of rural society. In many cases, however,
the channeling of development assistance to the better-off has led to concentration
of land and capital, marginalization of small farmers and alarming growth
in the number of landless labourers.

The basic fault in the conventional approach is that the rural poor are
rarely consulted in development planning and usually have no active role
in development activities. This is because the vast majority of the poor
have no organizational structure to represent their interests. Isolated,
undereducated and often dependent on rural elites, they lack the means to
win greater access to resources and markets, and to prevent the imposition
of unworkable programmes or technologies. The lesson is clear: unless the
rural poor are given the means to participate fully in development, they
will continue to be excluded from its benefits. This realization is provoking
new interest in an alternative rural development strategy, that of people's
participation through organizations controlled and financed by the poor.

The WCARRD concept of rural development

People's participation in rural development is by no means a new concept.
It was formulated in the mid-1970s, amid growing awareness that development
efforts were having little impact on poverty. At the World Conference on
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD), held in Rome in 1979, the
international community identified the reason for this failure - the lack
of active participation of the poor in programmes designed, supposedly,
to assist them.

WCARRD declared that participation by rural people in the institutions that
govern their lives is a basic human right. If rural development was to realize
its potential, the Conference said, disadvantaged rural people had to be
organized and actively involved in designing policies and programmes and
in controlling social and economic institutions. WCARRD saw a close link
between participation and voluntary, autonomous and democratic organizations
representing the poor. It called on development agencies to work in close
cooperation with organizations of intended beneficiaries, and proposed that
assistance be channeled through small farmer and peasant groups.

Participation in practice

Since WCARRD, developing countries have suffered economic set-backs unforeseen
in 1979. With their economic survival at stake, many countries have been
forced to cut back on rural development, giving priority to growth ahead
of WCARRD's concern for participation and equity. During this same period,
however, great progress has been made in the elaboration of participatory
principles and methodologies. Spurred by WCARRD, the Food and Agricultural
Organization launched the People's Participation Programme, or PPP, in 1980.
Since then, PPP has implemented pilot projects throughout the developing
world in an attempt to test and develop an operational method of people's
participation for incorporation in larger rural development schemes.

The experience of PPP has demonstrated that true participation is possible
only when the rural poor are able to pool their efforts and resources in
pursuit of objectives they set for themselves. The most efficient means
for achieving this objective, FAO has found, are small, democratic and informal
groups composed of eight to 15 like-minded farmers. For governments and
development agencies, people's participation through small groups offers
distinct advantages:

Economies of scale. The high cost of providing development services
to scattered, small scale producers is a major constraint on poverty-oriented
programmes. Participatory groups constitute a grassroots "receiving
system" that allows development agencies to reduce the unit delivery
or transaction costs of their services, thus broadening their impact.

Higher productivity. Given access to resources and a guarantee
that they will share fully in the benefits of their efforts, the poor become
more receptive to new technologies and services, and achieve higher levels
of production and income. This helps to build net cash surpluses that strengthen
the groups' economic base and contribute to rural capital formation.

Reduced costs and increased efficiency. The poor's contribution
to project planning and implementation represent savings that reduce project
costs. The poor also contribute their knowledge of local conditions, facilitating
the diagnosis of environmental, social and institutional constraints, as
well as the search for solutions.

Building of democratic organizations. The limited size and informality
of small groups is suited to the poor's scarce organizational experience
and low literacy levels. Moreover, the small group environment is ideal
for the diffusion of collective decision-making and leadership skills, which
can be used in the subsequent development of inter-group federations.

Sustainablility. Participatory development leads to increased
self-reliance among the poor and the establishment of a network of self-sustaining
rural organizations. This carries important benefits: the greater efficiency
of development services stimulates economic growth in rural areas and broadens
domestic markets, thus favouring balanced national development; politically,
participatory approaches provide opportunities for the poor to contribute
constructively to development.

The pivotal role of people's participation in development is now re-emerging
in economic and social development thinking. One striking example of this
trend comes from the World Bank. In its proposed strategy for sustainable
development in Africa, the Bank calls for a "people-centred" approach
that will improve the poor's access to productive assets, allow them to
participate in designing and implementing development programmes, and foster
their involvement in institutions from village to national level. UNICEF
has proposed similar measures in its strategy for structural adjustment
"with a human face", stressing people's participation in the formulation
of development policy, and efforts to make full use of local potential. FAO believes that the participatory approach described in the following
pages will be an essential part of any strategy to meet the challenges ahead.

2. The People's Participation Programme

Experience in Asia

FAO involvement with small farmer organizations in Asia provided much of the conceptual framework and field experience for the development of PPP. In the 1970s, FAO studies found that informal groups, consisting of 8-15 members from similar socio-economic backgrounds, were better vehicles for participation in decision-making and collective learning than heterogeneous, large scale and more formal organizations. This served as a stimulus for the FAO Small Farmers Development Programme (SFDP), which organized thousands of participatory groups in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos PDR, Nepal, The Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

The FAO People's Participation Programme arose from WCARRD and its call
for "the active involvement and organization of the grass roots level
of the rural people". PPP's main emphasis is on formation of small,
informal, self-reliant groups of the rural poor as part of a longer-term
strategy to build institutions serving their interests. These groups allow
members to work together on income-generating activities, serve as receiving
mechanisms for development services, and provide a voice for members in
dealing with local authorities. Facilitators in this process are project
coordinating committees, government and NGOs, and locally recruited group
promoters.

The first PPP project was launched in Sierra Leone in 1982. Later,
other projects were implemented in Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Nicaragua,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
In all, more than 13,000 people have actively participated in PPP; including
their household dependents, beneficiaries totaled more than 80,000 people.

PPP elements

A review of PPP revealed many similarities, but also marked differences,
in implementation of the principal elements of the participatory approach.
These elements are:

Focus on the rural poor. PPP beneficiaries included immigrant
settlers in Zimbabwe, artisanal fishing communities in Tanzania and subsistence
farmers in Ghana, Nicaragua and Thailand. In Lesotho and Swaziland most
participants were female household heads, one of the poorest strata in rural
society.

Promotion of women in development. About 5,000 women - or 37%
of all participants - were actively involved in PPP projects. While their
involvement was weak in some countries, women made up more than seven
out of every 10 participants in Lesotho, Swaziland and Zambia.

Small groups. The key element in PPP is the formation of small
homogeneous self-help groups. More than 1,000 such groups with average membership
of 12 persons were formed, almost a third of them in Ghana and Sri
Lanka. In other countries the number of groups ranged from 18 to 90. Groups
were run democratically, with members holding regular meetings and electing
their leaders. This group approach facilitated farmers' access to credit,
extension and other services.

Implementing agencies. Government ministries or semi-government
institutions had responsibility for implementing projects in Pakistan,
Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
FAO believes, however, that NGOs can make an important contribution. With
government agreement, NGOs were appointed as implementing agencies
in Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho and Nicaragua.

Coordinating committees. To maximize efficiency in use of resources
and promote better understanding of PPP, FAO encouraged the formation of
project-level and national-level coordinating committees. At field level,
these consisted of beneficiaries, project staff and administrators who guide
project implementation. At national level, representatives of government
ministries, NGOs and FAO monitored project performance.

National project staff. All project coordinators were nationals
trained by FAO. Each project coordinator was recruited directly by the implementing
agency, usually from the ranks of government services. Project coordinators
included extension officers, economists and youth workers.

Group promoters (GPs). Some 130 GPs were selected and trained
to assist in PPP group development and in linking groups to government services.
While most GPs were agricultural extension agents, school teachers or secondary
school graduates, the Programme encouraged the recruitment of "second-generation"
GPs from among PPP members.

Income-generation. Encouraged by their GPs and assisted by government
services, PPP members undertook additional income-generating activities
to build up and diversify their economic base. The majority of groups were
engaged in staple food and animal production, coming together on individual
members' plots or group farms for land preparation, planting and harvesting.
Many groups marketed their produce in bulk.

Group savings. An important objective of PPP was to mobilize group
savings to serve as additional credit, cover loan defaults and build up
the members' capital base. At one point, PPP participants - most of whom had
no previous experience of saving with banks - had saved a total of $68,000.

Group credit. To facilitate credit for PPP groups, FAO covered
the banks' risk of loan defaults with a Credit Guarantee Fund held at lending
institutions. Thanks to these arrangements, PPP groups
received annually a total of $350,000 in loans, an average of $324 per group.
PPP loan repayment rates were generally much higher than those recorded by
"low-cost" credit programmes for small farmers.

Training. High priority was given to improving the organizational
and production skills of PPP members, mainly through small field workshops.
Training was usually conducted by government extensionists at the request
of project staff or groups. It covered a wide field, including project planning,
recordkeeping, food storage, animal rearing and soil conservation.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Group members participated
fully in action research connected to the project, and in monitoring and
evaluation of project activities.

Self-reliance. Once groups began to consolidate their economic
base, they were urged to increase their self-reliance in preparation for
the withdrawal of their GPs and of FAO assistance. Self-reliance was stressed
through training, savings mobilization and consolidation of PPP groups in
self-governing umbrella organizations serving their wider interests. Some
121 inter-group federations were formed, along with loan committees
that process loan requests and distribute credit.

Replication of PPP

FAO considers that PPP's working hypothesis - that of realizing people's
participation through small group formation - is a valid concept and method.
The task ahead is to replicate the approach on a much larger scale. Replication
does not mean duplication: rather, it is the diffusion of PPP concepts,
methodologies and practices to governments, donors and other development
organizations and their adaptation to local conditions.

3. Selecting project areas and participants

Participatory rural development projects seek to improve the economic, social
and political conditions and capacities of the rural poor. Among the first
tasks of the project planner, therefore, are:

to identify rural areas where the majority of the population is poor

to select project action areas and, within them, village clusters where
group formation will begin

to identify poor inhabitants who may wish to participate in the project

to identify the poor's development needs.

Selecting project action areas and villages

Areas with a high concentration of poor people are characterized by very
limited natural resources and physical infrastructure, a lack of basic development
services, inequitable land tenure, subsistence or marginal agricultural
production and a shortage of on- and off-farm employment opportunities.

Planners can make a fairly accurate delineation of impoverished areas through
discussions with rural administrators and a rapid analysis of existing data
sources, including population censuses, household surveys and production
statistics for different geographic areas.

How PPP areas were chosen

Planners used a range of criteria in selecting PPP project areas and villages.
In Thailand, project areas were identified after a review of statistical data on relative poverty. Once the project began, group promoters collected detailed information through a community level survey, followed by a household survey to identify poor families and their needs.In Zambia, a PPP project was sited in one of the country's poorest regions. Provincial authorities chose two districts as project areas mainly because well-qualified staff were available locally. Project villages were selected in consultation with local leaders and agricultural extensionists. In Kenya, the implementing agency selected villages where farmers' groups were already operating.

Once poor areas have been identified, planners need to select from among
them areas suitable for participatory development projects. Here, somewhat
different considerations apply. It would be counter-productive to select
areas with development problems so serious that they limited the project's
chances of success. Preference should go, therefore, to poor areas where
there is relatively greater potential for development of viable economic
activities, availability of at least some development services that could
be channelled to the poor, and market outlets for goods and services.

The next step is to select village clusters - i.e. a group of adjacent villages
with cultural, economic or physical links - where project activities will
begin. To identify these clusters, project planners should conduct exploratory
socio-economic surveys, preferably in cooperation with group promoters.
Villages selected should have potential for development and a low degree
of social stratification.

Selecting project participants

In most developing countries, the rural population can be divided into three
broad socio-economic categories: the rich, who usually control most of the
means of production (chiefly land) and have greatest access to development
services; the middle class, with secure and sufficient access to income
and assets; and the disadvantaged or poor, who live at or below subsistence
level.

The rural poor depend for their livelihoods on full- or part-time employment
in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, handicrafts and related occupations.
They include small and marginal landowner-farmers, tenants, sharecroppers,
landless labourers and small fishermen, as well as forestry workers, rural
artisans, nomadic pastoralists and refugees.

Problems in selecting participants

Experience with PPP highlights constraints and shortcomings in the application of criteria for the selection of project participants. In Kenya, the lack of sufficient and well-defined guidelines led to the formation of groups that included well-off farmers as well as poor subsistence farmers for whom the project was intended. Other problems stem from difficulties in defining adequate criteria for identifying the poor. In Sierra Leone, for instance, many "households" were multi-family units of more than than 25 people. Assessing the division of income from land worked by one member of these extended families proved almost impossible. In Zambia, land tenure was nearly impossible to assess: land is not owned privately but allocated temporarily by traditional chiefs to those in need.

Levels of deprivation also exist among the poor. Small farmers are sometimes
considered "marginally poor" because they have some access to
income and assets. Usually worse off are sharecroppers, landless labourers
and hawkers (the very poor), who are dependent on the better-off for their
survival. The most deprived people in rural areas are destitutes, such as
widows and the handicapped, who have no economic base whatsoever.

To identify potential participants, project staff should gather existing
information on the rural population in the selected project action area,
including data on population, land tenure, economic activities and income
distribution. From this information, the staff can assess directly the numbers,
proportion and main characteristics of the poor and non-poor.

For a more accurate assessment, it may be necessary to develop poverty criteria
specific to the area. Possible criteria include level of access to productive
resources, ethnic and caste characteristics, level of skills available in
the family, on- and off-farm family income, the extent of family indebtedness,
housing conditions, nutrition status, level of education and family health,
and extent of participation in rural people's organizations and in local
decision-making.

Typically, project participants will be people whose main source of income
is agriculture, fishing or related activities, whose principal source of
labour is their family, and whose income is below the average in the area
concerned. They will have little or no access to inputs, credit, markets,
training, extension and other services.

While a participatory project seeks to benefit all categories of the rural
poor, it need not necessarily start with the poorest. In fact, some projects
deliberately seek to involve first the marginally poor small farmers rather
than the very poor or destitutes. Experience has shown that small farmers
are often keener to create organizations because they can afford to risk
some of their assets in group activities. The very poor have fewer assets
and more debts, and are more dependent on their employers. For this group,
risk-taking can pose a threat to their very survival. Involvement of poorer
people may be achieved only in later phases.

Identifying participants' needs

As the participatory project will form groups of the poor to help them satisfy
their priority needs, these needs must be clearly identified. The poor's
needs, which are directly related to group and family-level poverty, may
have physiological, psychological, economic or socio-cultural dimensions.
Moreover, among the poor, these needs have rankings of importance that may
not be perceived by untrained observors.

To make a preliminary assessment of the rural poor's needs and aspirations,
staff should consult with the intended participants. For this reason, an
applied sociologist or anthropologist, and one or more experts in agronomy
or other fields depending upon the type of project and its action areas,
should be included in either the project identification mission or a reconnaissance
mission undertaken beforehand.

Reconnaissance teams should carry out relatively rapid but practical social
and economic studies, consulting a representative cross-section of local
people - in particular the poor - as well as key members of local people's
organizations and traditional leaders. The team's inquiries should cover
such topics as existing development efforts, felt needs, aspirations and
constraints. The information collected - although sufficient to devise a
flexible project framework - should be regarded as preliminary and, in part,
suspect. More reliable in-depth data will be gathered by field staff as
they gradually gain the people's confidence while working with them during
project implementation.

Needs identification - and the search for ways to satisfy needs - should
be regarded, therefore, as a continuous process, as groups and organizations
involved in the project assert their felt needs and delivery staff endeavour
to meet them.

4. Forming groups of the rural poor

The central element in PPP is the formation of self-help groups of the rural
poor as the first step in a long-term institution building process. Groups
are formed around activities designed to satisfy the priority needs of the
intended participants. Group membership offers the poor a number of advantages:

Groups are starting bases for development activities. By pooling
their capital, labour and other resources, members are able to carry out
profitable self-help activities which, if undertaken by individuals, would
involve greater risk and effort.

Groups are efficient receiving mechanisms. Well trained and motivated
groups offer government and NGO development agencies cost savings in the
delivery of inputs, services and facilities.

Groups are learning laboratories. Members learn from their group
promoter, and from each other, such skills as managing group enterprises,
articulating, discussing and solving problems, and keeping accounts.

Groups help empower the rural poor. Groups provide the poor with
an effective instrument for participation in local decision-making, helping
them to cooperate more fully in the development of their communities and
to exert pressure, where necessary, to improve their conditions.

Forming small, homogeneous groups

Receiving systems

Government and NGO delivery systems often have no matching receiving system through which development assistance can be channelled to the poor. As a result, development agencies find it easier to serve a minority of better-off farmers than large numbers of small scale producers. The group approach helps the poor to create their own receiving mechanisms. To undertake economic activities, groups seek support - in the form of training, credit, inputs and social services - from local delivery agencies. For the delivery system, groups offer significant economies of scale: tools and inputs can be delivered in bulk, training conducted in groups and credit dispersed as group loans. Thus, the poor win greater access to technical advice and production inputs, while the delivery agencies broaden the impact of their assistance.

The project should first make an inventory of all existing forms of people's
groups organizations within the proposed action area. These groups and organizations
may be traditional or more modern types, such as farmer associations, cooperatives
and trade unions.

The question is whether or not these organizations genuinely represent the
interests of the rural poor. Cooperatives are often too large and their
structures too hierarchical to be effective vehicles for participatory development.
Similarly, traditional tribal or community groupings are often managed in
a top-down fashion and may provide limited opportunities for participatory
learning and decision making.

If the inventory indicates that participatory groups are lacking, the project
should promote their formation among project participants. In PPP's experience
four essential guidelines should be followed:

Groups should be small. The optimum number of members is between
eight and 15. Small groups facilitate dialogue between members, have greater
economic flexibility, and are less likely to be dominated by management
elites or break down into factions.

Groups should be homogeneous. Members should live under similar
economic conditions and have close social affinity. Homogeneity reduces
conflict at group level: members with similar backgrounds are more likely
to trust each other and accept joint liability for their activities.

Groups should be formed around viable starter income-raising activities.
Income-raising activities are crucial to group development because they
generate assets that help build financial self-reliance.

Groups should be voluntary and self-governing. Participants should
decide who will join the groups, who will lead them, what rules they will
follow, and what activities they will undertake. Decisions should be taken
by consensus or majority vote.

Prior to beginning group formation, project staff should conduct
a household survey with the local population to identify homogeneity
factors, poverty levels, priority needs and criteria for group membership.
The objectives of the project and its focus on the poor should be openly
discussed and the villagers involved in selection of criteria for participation
in the groups.

The project should then organize informal meetings with prospective group
members to discuss the purpose, methods of operation and benefits of groups,
as well as possible enterprises and means of production. Group promoters
should make a list of potential group members and leaders, possible group
activities and required inputs.

Once the participants have identified viable income-raising activities,
those interested in a particular activity should decide on criteria for
group membership: for example, whether members should belong to a specific
category (such as small-holders, tenants or landless) or whether the group
should be male-only, female-only or mixed. They should also assess their
productive resources, including capital, skills and experience.

By consensus or formal voting, the group members should then elect a chairperson,
secretary and treasurer. Project staff should encourage rotation of leadership
positions among group members in order to give all members leadership experience,
thus minimizing the risk of domination by a few. Finally, the group should
formulate its own constitution and procedures, setting out rules on such
matters as the frequency of group meetings and the use of savings and loans.

Formation of viable and stable groups requires patience and, in most cases,
a period of from two to six months. Both overly rapid formation and overly
long delays, which may dampen the interest of potential group members, should
be avoided.

Obstacles to group formation

"A natural division of interests"

Conflicts are more likely to arise in heterogeneous groups, when better-off members attempt to influence decisions or expropriate benefits. Problems of this kind arose in Sri Lanka, where small scale business people managed to join some PPP groups. "Over two or three seasons they undermined their groups with offers of credit and inputs at high interest rates," the project coordinator said. "The groups gradually broke up because of this natural division of interests." Confidence in the project was restored only after the non-poor were excluded. In some cases, however, group homogeneity may conflict with local social structures and traditions. In Thailand, the formation of groups of the poor was seen in some areas as a threat to social harmony. The project decided not to exclude better-off farmers, although group promoters did manage to form more or less homogeneous groups.

The process of group formation often faces formidable obstacles. Many arise
from within the ranks of the rural poor themselves. Heavy work loads and
generally poor health often leave the poor with little energy for "participation",
while their low level of education and geographic isolation cuts them off
from progressive ideas. Perhaps the most insidious obstacles to be overcome
are the rural poor's own lack of unity and their psychological dependence
on the rich. In most cases, the rural poor are economically dependent on
landowners, traders and middlemen. Accustomed to leaving initiatives and
decisions to their traditional "leaders", they may fear intimidation
or expulsion from their land if they become involved in independent peasant
organizations.

Other constraints are posed by local power-holders - and even slightly better-off
farmers - who may see the groups as a threat to age-old, and often highly
profitable, patron-client relationships.

At local level, project staff can help overcome this antagonism by winning
the support of traditional, administrative and other leaders. They may need
to call meetings to sensitize leaders to the objectives of the participatory
project and, above all, to illustrate the benefits of its activities to
the area as a whole. These benefits include improvements in community living
standards, an increased flow of government services to the village and,
consequently, greater prestige for the village and its leaders.

Inter-group federations

Once groups have established a sound economic base, PPP promotes their consolidation
into local-level inter-group federations. It does this because small groups
usually become stronger and more efficient when horizontally and vertically
linked. Inter-group federations promote solidarity and economies of scale
both in group activities and delivery of development services, and enable
members to develop a broad base for action. In addition, development of
local - and, eventually, regional and national - structures can stimulate
the formation of more groups.

Forms of federation

There is no universal model for inter-group federations. In Ghana, for example, participants in one village cluster all belonged to an inter-group federation, while in another the federation was made up only of group representatives. In a neighbouring area, a federation consisted of two groups involved in cassava processing. In Sri Lanka, federations are made up of two delegates from groups in each cluster, while in Lesotho, they consist of elected group delegates plus a representative of the traditional local leader.

An inter-group federation represents its constituent groups and is not an
executive body: it must be accountable to all group members. It should have
a facilitating, coordinating and educational role and become a source of
technical assistance, economies of scale and guidance. For instance, a federation
can offer training to new groups and even help finance their activities
from accumulated savings. Moreover, it can serve as a reference point for
formation of new inter-group federations and eventually perform at least
some of the functions of group promoters.

In most cases, federations should, initially, represent groups with a variety
of economic activities, rather than a single activity. Multi-activity federations
are usually better able to meet common needs of the groups, such as training
and information exchange, and to exert pressure on the delivery system.
Single-activity federations may emerge at a later stage.

Inter-group federations may be legalized as pre-cooperatives or federations
in order to obtain more recognition, legal status, services and facilities.
They may also link themselves to participatory, rural poor-oriented cooperatives
or other people's organizations. It should be stressed, however, that the
groups do not replace cooperatives and other village institutions. They
remain autonomous interest groups that may operate within, and help to strengthen,
existing traditional or informal organizations, thus broadening the network
of institutions serving the rural poor.

Linking federations to existing organizations not only facilitates delivery
of development services and facilities, but also the consolidation of group
plans into multi-group or federation plans that can be matched with area
and regional development plans through local coordination committees. Thus,
a two-way planning process can be developed.

Through inter-group activities and federations of groups, the poor become
increasingly self-confident and recognized by their wider community. They
obtain organizational power and may eventually be represented in local government
bodies.

5. Group activities

Participatory groups are formed around activities that meet the identified
priority needs and aspirations of those who wish to become members. The
purpose of these activities is primarily economic and developmental: to
increase members' production and income, reduce costs, promote financial
self-reliance and contribute to community welfare.

The nature of group activities will depend on the needs, desires and capabilities
of each group, local economic, social and institutional potentials, and
the project's design, objectives, staff and resources.

Raising income

PPP groups developed a wide variety of income-generating activities. In Ghana, groups engaged in maize farming, cassava processing, brickmaking and production of baskets and beads. In Thailand, they raise pigs, poultry and freshwater fish. Zambian groups have set up rural nurseries to propagate cashew seedlings for sale. Other groups earn income from production and marketing of vegetables. In Lesotho, activities ranged from sewing and knitting to crop, poultry and animal production (one piggery group recently won first prize for its piglets at a national agricultural show). Groups in Sri Lanka earn extra income through intensive production of cash crops, sesame oil extraction, rearing chickens, goats and milking cows, and labour contracts.

Although group activities vary widely, four general types can be distinguished:

Direct income-raising activities. These are existing or new enterprises,
in any economic sector or subsector, that produce income. For example, groups
may intensify production of food or cash crops, develop small-scale animal
husbandry, small-scale aquaculture or agro-processing, and build small scale
irrigation, drainage or anti-erosion systems. Other activities include development
of low-cost storage, transport and marketing facilities, supply points for
inputs or utility stores, and micro-industries such as blacksmithing.

Cost-saving activities. These are activities that increase net
income by reducing costs. They include activities that reduce production
costs, such as bulk purchasing of inputs, group transport and marketing
of products, and consumer savings through joint purchasing of consumer goods
in bulk. Groups might also benefit from social savings - e.g. group agreement
to cut spending on alcohol and gambling - and social insurance through group
welfare funds or collective insurance arrangements.

Production-facilitating activities. These aim at creating favourable
conditions for group production. They include consolidating members' holdings
for joint production, cleaning irrigation canals, building or repairing
roads, and village electrification. At the political level, groups might
lobby for enforcement of land reform laws.

Community development activities. Many groups undertake social
and cultural activities in the fields of health and sanitation, education,
family planning, folk theatre and village beautification. In many areas
there is an acute need for group action to promote better nutrition and
improved food storage, and install clean water supplies.

Selecting group income-generating activities

The principal objective of group activities in all PPP projects is to improve
group members' incomes and mobilize group savings. That is why PPP emphasizes
income-generating or cost-saving activities based on local experience and
low-cost technology. These undertakings do not replace but are meant to
supplement members' normal production. Activities of this type are most
likely to broaden the groups' economic base, mobilize savings, strengthen
group cohesion and develop their enterprise management skills. Groups are
encouraged to undertake social or community improvement activities only
at a later stage.

Building a rural enterprise

Two PPP groups in Ghana, established a highly profitable cassava processing enterprise. The groups began producing gari (dehydrated cassava meal) in 1983 to raise extra income. They soon realized they could make better profits by increasing the volume - and improving the quality - of output. Members made an inventory of available raw materials, labour and processing technology, and assessed their needs for transport, marketing, technical skills and capital. After attending an FAO workshop on cassava processing methods and small scale enterprise management, they built a processing plant on land obtained from the relative of one member. The enterprise has expanded rapidly. The members process more than 50 tonnes of cassava a year and have won orders from government institutions and food exporters.

It is important that - as far as possible - each group identifies, plans,
carries out and evaluates its own activities. This is essential for group
development and, eventually, self-reliance. While group promoters have an
important role in encouraging group activities, especially in the initial
stages, theirs is a facilitating role that will be reduced gradually as
the groups develop.

Since the main objective of any enterprise is to produce something that
people will buy, the group should be taught how to conduct simple market
surveys in their community to identify a product or service needed and how
much customers are prepared to pay for it. The group should then decide
whether members have the resources and skills to supply it. The group should
choose a product or service it can produce economically and well, avoiding
complex production processes. Next, the group should calculate what is required
to establish the enterprise, i.e. what skills and other resources each member
can contribute. The final, and most important step, is to calculate expected
profits.

Each group should prepare a simple group business plan dealing with the
socio-economic conditions, resources and problems of the participating households.
They should also prepare a schedule of operations and plans for future subsidiary
on- or off-farm income-raising activities of individual members that may
strengthen their economic base.

Small-scale feasibility studies may be needed in order to produce workable
proposals for group activities. These studies should consider existing income-generating
and other activities promoted by government or NGO agencies in the area.
The identification of viable group activities also forms part of on-going
action research - for example, a number of proposals may emerge from household
survey data.

Problems in developing group activities

Development of group activities faces a number of obstacles. Among them
are insufficient, inadequate or late delivery of inputs, lack of training
of local field staff and group members in group dynamics and group enterprise
management, and insufficient consideration of the feasibility, cost/benefit
and creditworthiness of the group enterprise

The importance of group planning

Examples from Zambia and Swaziland highlight the importance of planning in group activities. A Swazi group decided to raise broilers for sale. Members obtained credit to build a chicken shed, then discovered some of the problems of running a rural enterprise: wild fluctuations in the availability of chickens, high transport costs and unreliable markets. After three years, the activity had barely made a profit and members had to repay the loan from their own savings. In Zambia, meanwhile, two groups decided to establish orange groves only after a detailed feasibility study which showed that they could expect profits of $7,500 a year within 10 years. The study estimated total costs of $3,800 in the five years before the trees became productive. Thereafter, the groves would yield 1.5 tonnes of oranges, rising to nine tonnes by the fifth season. In this period, total profit was expected to be $21,000.

The first hurdle faced by most groups is that of financing the activity.
While the project may envisage provision of credit for the groups, experience
indicates that initial activities should be funded by group members themselves
through savings. This ensures that the scope of the activity is within the
group's existing capacity and resources, builds commitment to the group
and reduces debt dependency. Another common problem in developing activities
is the groups' need for training. Members often have low literacy and numeracy
skills, both of which handicap sound management. Unfortunately, there is
a serious lack of training materials for the rural poor in this field.

As a group develops its activities and sees the rewards they bring, it usually
begins to undertake additional, more complex enterprises. The risk here
is that groups may "bite off more than they can chew". Group promoters
should help their groups examine objectively the feasibility of proposed
new activities by assessing the availability of group resources, funding
and local markets.

It is no easy task to teach groups with limited literacy, numeracy and organizational
skills how to manage an enterprise. The project may need to develop training
materials and methods tailored to the learning capacities of group members.
These should focus on developing skills in two critical areas: operational
and strategic management. Operational management deals with issues arising
from groups' day-to-day activities. For effective operational management
there is a great need for instructional manuals on group dynamics, group
business management, monitoring and evaluation, and savings/credit.

Strategic management focuses on solving problems related to the long-term
development of certain group activities, allowing members to anticipate
the impact of external factors (for example, new price policies or environmental
damage caused by over-cropping or over-fishing).

Finally, the groups need to examine very carefully the feasibility of undertaking
collective production activities. Experience with PPP has shown that while
group members obtain better returns by sharing production inputs and experience,
many have learnt - the hard way - that actual production is often best conducted
on an individual basis. Many attempts to farm communal plots have failed
owing to disputes over the allocation of labour and the division of income.

Project staff generally advise those groups wishing to use communal plots
to plan the activity together, but divide the land into individual plots
for production. Collective efforts are better suited to the sharing of newly
acquired technical skills, or expensive or laborious tasks such as transporting
inputs and produce.

6. Project implementing agencies

PPP projects are implemented with the active involvement of supporting government
institutions - such as line departments, banks, training and research centres
and women and youth councils - as well as NGOs, including church-related
development agencies, national NGO federations and small development-oriented
organizations.

Choosing the implementing agency

A local NGO or a government agency, or a partnership of both, can implement
the project. Where the political climate is favourable, government agencies
are preferred. In other cases, NGOs with experience at the grassroot level
might be more suitable: experience indicates that NGOs usually have closer
ties with grassroots rural people, are less hierarchical and bureaucratic
and provide services more efficiently.

The selection of an implementing agency will also depend on the type of
project concerned and the capabilities and willingness of agencies to provide
the participatory groups with the services and facilities they need.

Project planners should also consider whether prospective implementing agencies
are prepared to second field workers, such as extensionists and social workers,
to serve as project group promoters. In the case of training or socio-economic
research centres, the project should ascertain whether these institutions
have genuine concern for the rural poor and whether they can provide the
expertise needed for participatory training, action research and evaluation.
Regardless of which agency is eventually chosen to implement the project,
overall government support should be guaranteed from the outset.

The project coordinator

The project coordinator is employed by the implementing agency and is specifically
charged with supporting, coordinating and supervising all operations concerned
with the rural poor's participation.

"On the side of the poor"

Sudath de Abrew was an extension agent before becoming coordinator of the Sri Lanka PPP project. "In a line agency, you are expected to produce results," he said. "The shortest cut is to work with the middle-level and rich farmers who have the means of implementing your advice. I was not reaching the small farmers and was not aware of their problems." His attitude has changed with PPP: "When you work with the poor, you are reoriented so much that within 18 months you are on their side. I am happy that I found the right place for me." The Zambia project coordinator, Lydia Ndulu, agreed. "A coordinator must be committed to the people and to the cause of the people because she will always be in contact with them," Ms. Ndulu said. "I know now that when a group is formed, it should be up to them to do everything and perceive everything in their own way. I am there to help them or find someone who can help them better than I can."

In line with these duties, he or she should be a member of the coordination
committee at project level, should brief committee members on project activities
and progress and should assist in the selection, training and guidance of
group promoters. The coordinator should also be a member of the national
coordinating committee.

The essential qualifications of a project coordinator include close acquaintance
with the problems of the rural poor and the motivation to assist them, experience
in working with field agents such as extensionists and social workers, familiarity
with government and international development bodies at various levels,
and experience in organizing training activities. The coordinator should
also have an academic degree or equivalent in economics, social or agricultural
science, and a good knowledge of the local language in the project area.

Coordination of project support

The success of a participatory project depends on firm political backing
and the allocation of sufficient development resources to meet participants'
needs. The project should, therefore, establish coordination mechanisms
that guide agencies involved in project implementation and support, monitor
progress, avoid duplication of efforts and disseminate information about
project activities. These coordination mechanisms are of two types:

Local coordination committee in the project area. This committee
should be composed of group delegates, project staff, representatives of
local delivery agencies and, where opportune, local leaders. The committee's
task is to provide local-level support for the project by promoting people's
participation and solving implementation problems, especially in the delivery
of services and facilities to the groups.

It does this by helping to recruit and train project staff, especially group
promoters, providing project staff with guidelines for the planning, implementation
and evaluation of the rural poor's participation, and promoting effective
two-way communication between low-income groups in the project areas and
government and NGO officials at various levels.

Reducing frictions, and speeding up
bank loans

In Ghana, where many PPP participants were landless, the project coordination committee proved useful in reducing frictions with local landowners. The committee consisted of elected cluster leaders, the local bank manager, and representatives of the implementing NGO and the landowning traditional council. One issue addressed by the committee was the rent levied on tenant farmers. Through the committee, PPP groups negotiated a new three-year contract with the traditional council.
National coordinating committees are in a position to solve bottlenecks affecting the delivery of project inputs. In Sri Lanka, the Central Coordinating Committee was made up of high-ranking officials from several Government ministries and FAO. At one of its monthly meetings, the project coordinator reported that groups had not received their seasonal loans on time. The committee decided that before the next season the lending bank should scrutinize and approve loan applications in one day. The committee's instruction was transmitted through the bank's head office to its branch managers.

The committee should also work to secure training for the groups from government
and NGO bodies, promote the consolidation of the project's activities and
their multiplication in other areas of the country, and perform any other
function that will enhance the success of the project.

In areas where a task force for a larger project already exists, the coordinating
committee could be constituted as a participation sub-committee of the task
force. Within this body, small technical committees could also be created
for training, approval of group loans and monitoring and evaluation.

National coordinating committee. While coordination of project support
services should be undertaken mainly at local level, encouragement and support
from national level is essential. In the case of large projects, support
might be organized through a special national coordinating committee or
task force, or an existing national committee established for similar development
programmes. National committees might also appoint a sub-committee or special
task force to deal with general policies, personnel, finance and other matters
affecting participatory development.

Although the coordination mechanisms described above are desirable, flexibility
is also needed. Arrangements will vary according to local conditions and
the type of coordination bodies already existing in a country or project
area. In addition, a project involving mainly government agencies may require
a coordination mechanism different to that needed for a project implemented
by an NGO.

For the latter type of project, it may be appropriate to set up one or more
small task forces at national and at lower levels that include representatives
of the NGOs concerned and possibly of the supporting government agencies.

7. The financial component

Accumulation and reinvestment of wealth are driving forces behind economic
development. Financial institutions - such as banks, credit unions and informal
savings societies - have, therefore, an important role to play in participatory
projects: they provide a secure place for group members' savings, facilitate
financial transactions and supply credit for investment in group activities.

In most developing countries, however, the rural poor have little, if any,
access to institutional finance. This is partly because the rural poor lack
the physical collateral normally required to qualify for bank loans. Another
disincentive for banks is the high per unit cost of delivering financial
services to the poor. Reaching and servicing large numbers of scattered
and unorganized rural people is time-consuming, and the volume of their
individual savings and loan operations is low. Dealing with the poor as
individuals is simply not cost-effective for banks, nor is it profitable,
given the interest rate ceilings under which most banks operate.

Facilitating savings and access to credit

Savings first

PPP experience highlights the importance of "savings before credit" in group financial development. In Sri Lanka members of newly formed groups are asked to determine how much they will save each week, based on the capability of the poorest member. Savings come from weekly membership fees, profits on activities, and interest earned on emergency loans to members. Sums of $40 or less are usually kept by the treasurer; larger amounts are banked. The "savings first" philosophy has paid off: so far, the Sri Lanka groups have accumulated savings of $9,000, an average of $5 per member in areas where the poor earn less than $1 a day. Loans to individual members are channeled into a group account before being distributed. In this way, the group is made responsible for the entire loan. "We tell the groups that unless they are extremely sure of the creditworthiness of a member, they should not forward an application for that member," the project coordinator said.

Given these constraints, PPP has developed a set of financial strategies
designed to improve the rural poor's access to essential financial services
and promote their financial self-reliance. PPP projects introduce, on a
pilot basis, new financial mechanisms and incentives that modify the existing
rural financial environment: first, by reducing the cost to the banks of
delivering savings and credit services to small farmers; and, second, by
lowering the cost to project participants of gaining access to these services.

Although PPP financial approaches vary according to local conditions, all
of them share five basic elements:

Savings first. Groups are encouraged to initiate group-based
savings schemes prior to applying for bank loans. Progress in mobilizing
group savings provides a measure of members' commitment to the group enterprise
and their loan repayment capacity.

Group savings and credit. Delivery of financial services to participatory
groups, rather than individuals, carries cost advantages for both banks
and the poor. For example, a joint loan application submitted by a group
of 10 farmers reduces the bank's loan administration costs by a factor of
10. Group saving offers similar reductions in deposit account maintenance
costs. Transactions costs are also lower for the group members: they need
to prepare only one loan application and make a single trip to their local
bank branch.

Credit Guarantee Fund. To encourage an interested institution
to lend to participatory groups, each PPP project provides a special Credit
Guarantee Fund (CGF) to cover losses resulting from loan defaults. The fund,
held in an interest-bearing account at the institution, is governed by a
written agreement that sets out conditions under which loans are to be granted
from the bank's own capital, as well as procedures to be followed in case
of non-repayment of loans.

Linking savings with credit. Through the CGF agreement, the cooperating
bank also requires that groups open a joint savings account and make regular
deposits for a specified period before becoming eligible for loans. Some
projects limit the maximum amount that a group can borrow to a multiple
of the amount in the group's savings account, or require the group to deposit
part of its loan as savings.

Loans based on social collateral. In PPP projects, the cooperating
bank is encouraged to relax requirements for physical collateral and use
"social collateral" in its place. Members of borrowing groups
are held jointly responsible for the repayment of their group loan. Should
one member of the group fail to repay his or her portion of the loan, the
entire group loan is considered delinquent and all group members are barred
from obtaining credit until it has been repaid. (This mechanism is partly
responsible for the PPP loan recovery rate of 80-90%, roughly double the
rate achieved by most small farmer credit schemes.)

Group training in financial self-reliance. An essential element
of PPP is the training of group members and leaders in the importance of
achieving financial self-reliance. Groups are encouraged to exercise discipline
in the use of savings and credit in order to maximize the income-generating
potential of their activities, to accumulate wealth and to build credit-worthiness.
The group promoter plays an important role in this education process and
serves as a link between the group and the cooperating bank.

Financial arrangements

The success of a PPP project may depend, to a large extent, on the support
of an existing rural financial institution. Selecting an appropriate institution
during project formulation is, therefore, of the upmost importance.

Adapting to local conditions

The design and operation of the PPP financial component is tailored to conditions in individual countries. When the PPP project began in Ghana, for example, the country suffered from high inflation and a shortage of foreign exchange. To facilitate project operations, the guarantee fund was transferred into an Input-Import Fund held in convertible currency outside the country, while the Ghanaian Government allocated funds sufficient to cover most local currency costs. The collaborating bank received the inputs, which were then distributed to the participants on credit. The price of inputs in local currency was determined jointly by the government, the project and the bank. In Sierra Leone, where the PPP project provided credit directly, a detailed system was developed to provide and recover loans in kind. In Zambia, credit is administered by a national cooperative organization. Other project-specific arrangements include group marketing of surplus in Ghana and the formation of local credit unions in Lesotho.

There are several selection criteria. First, the institution should have
a widespread network of branches in rural areas, and particularly in the
project action area. Its management should be willing to introduce and test
group approaches to delivering financial services to small farmers and should
accept the concept of group-based social collateral. The institution should
also agree to the establishment of the Credit Guarantee Fund. Finally, it
should also be prepared to provide group-based or individual savings facilities
for project participants and to introduce mechanisms to stimulate saving.
Once an appropriate banking institution has been selected, the next step
is to negotiate the Credit Guarantee Fund agreement. In PPP's experience,
negotiation of this agreement may take time and project activities may have
to begin before the actual agreement is signed. Nevertheless, the proposed
agreement with the selected institution should be made a part of the project
document.

To ensure that the bank provides proper supervision and technical support
to its new clients, CGF agreements usually call for the setting up of a
small farmer finance management committee within the bank to monitor the
implementation of the project's financial component. Representatives of
the cooperating bank may also be asked to serve on local or national project
coordinating committees.

Finally, group promoters play a critical role in building up financial-self
reliance among PPP groups. The GP must not only train members in basic financial
skills, but assist the bank in recovering loans and building stronger links
with the groups. As the groups reach maturity, however, this responsibility
should be assumed gradually by inter-group federations. The federations
thus complement - and help reduce the costs of - the bank's own supervisory
and monitoring support.

8. Group promoters

The group promoter (or GP) is a key agent in any participatory project:
his or her task is to facilitate development of the groups' capacity to
organize and manage their activities. Whereas extension agents, community
development workers and project field staff normally deal with entire rural
communities, irrespective of the communities' social and economic divisions,
group promoters assist exclusively the poor.

Unlike many extensionists, GPs do not see their "clients" as passive
recipients of new technical knowledge: their aim is to work side by side
with the poor, building up their confidence in their own abilities and promoting
their self-reliance. Since this must be done without creating patron-client
dependencies, the GP's task is essentially that of an intermediary, with
three basic roles:

group adviser, strengthening the groups' leadership, organizational
and planning capacity

"link person", facilitating communication between the groups
and government and NGO development services.

In FAO's experience, one group promoter can help to organize an average
of 15 groups in three years. Thus, each GP should reach directly over three
years some 150 households, or at least 900 people, including direct participants
and their dependents. However, a crucial test of a GP's effectiveness is
the capacity of the groups to reduce and finally end the need for his or
her assistance.

Selecting GPs

Profile of a GP

PPP group promoters come from a variety of backgrounds. In Zambia, where there is a lack of well-qualified personnel willing to work in isolated villages, GPs were recruited from among local women with a secondary education. The were trained in group formation, the role of village headmen, decision making and cost/benefit analysis. In Sri Lanka, group promoters were university graduates (with a BSc or BA in social sciences) employed for three year periods. They receive six months training, most of it on-the-job in the project area. In Zimbabwe and Thailand, GPs were drawn mainly from extension services or similar government agencies, while in Kenya they were recruited from the NGO implementing agency's field staff.

The selection, recruitment, training and guidance of GPs are crucial steps
in any participatory project. To be effective, GPs should have experience
in working with people and local organizations in rural areas, and familiarity
with the problems of the poor. It is essential that candidates have a strong
commitment to live with, work with and assist the rural poor for at least
two years.

They should be familiar with the language and culture of the project area
and willing to leave decision making to the group members, promoting among
them attitudes of self-help and self-reliance. Desirable GP qualifications
are a rural background, secondary level education, and experience in community
or rural development or in such fields as social work, elementary economics
or sociology, agriculture and extension.

While GPs may be part of the same ethnic or linguistic group as the project
participants, they should not be from the project area: the effectiveness
of locally recruited GPs may be limited by kinship obligations and fear
of alienating local leaders. In some cases, however, GPs can be recruited
from and posted to their own village or zone of origin, the advantage being
that their experience and know-how can continue to be utilized after withdrawal
of the project.

Government extension agents performed well

The PPP project in Thailand seconded 26 GPs from the government agricultural extension service. The extension agents, who normally used the "Training-and-Visit" method based on individual contacts with farmers, had expressed willingness to try a bottom-up approach. Their enthusiasm and extension experience proved a distinct advantage: they had a sound knowledge of agriculture, had built up good relations with their target rural communities, and needed training only in participatory methods to prepare them for their new role. The GPs performed well and helped promote a participatory approach among their colleagues in the extension service.

Capable group promoters may be recruited from government agencies or local
NGOs. In some countries, preference should go to government agencies willing
to second their own staff to the project. Several PPP projects found excellent
group promoters among government extension staff, who later returned to
their agencies to propagate the participatory approach. Thus, the agencies
were sensitized and better able to serve the rural poor, while project sustainability
increased because recurrent costs were lower. The use of seconded government
workers also enhances project expansion and multiplication.

If the project lacks the funding needed to recruit full-time GPs, their
task can be performed in part by trained project staff who have other technical
duties. However, such staff should preferably be locally recruited, with
tasks that bring them into direct contact with the intended project participants.

Posting GPs

GPs are expected to live in, or very close to, the village cluster in which
they work. Once clusters have been identified, at least two group promoters
should be assigned to each cluster and begin work in a core village (in
most cases, male-female teams may be more effective). The GPs should make
themselves constantly available to the project participants.

The image of group promoters among the population in their action area is
important. They should gradually build up confidential relationships with
the local community, being careful to begin with the project participants
and only thereafter dealing with better-off social strata. Through daily
interaction with the poor, the GPs will gradually come to be regarded as
animators and guides, and not as "top-down" government officials
or outsiders interfering with the local culture and habits.

Promoting group self-reliance

While group promoters are promoting the self-reliance of their groups, they
are also working towards their own redundancy in the action area. GPs promote
self-reliance by involving the group members in activities that allow them
to develop leadership and recordkeeping skills. He or she should encourage
group-to-group exchanges, and ensure the presence of one or more group members
whenever he or she deals with supporting institutions such as banks and
delivery agencies.

When and how should GPs gradually withdraw from their groups? Experience
in the implementation of PPP projects indicates that it takes from three
to five years for groups to achieve complete self-reliance. Clearly, the
disengagement process is a delicate one and depends on the rate at which
each group develops. Once a group is capable of gaining access to government
and NGO services and taking other initiatives without GP assistance, the
GP can gradually withdraw to concentrate on serving other more needy groups,
making only occasional return visits to ensure that progress continues.

Setting up inter-group federations in the third or fourth years of project
implementation is important, as these bodies can gradually assume many of
the GPs' support responsibilities. Self-reliance may not always mean total
disengagement of group promoters: in some cases, GPs could be maintained
by federations to perform certain specific functions.

Internal group promoters

Internal group promoters are group members who possess the skills needed
to undertake GP tasks within their own communities. Suitable candidates
may emerge during the process of identifying project participants or, more
commonly, during group development, as organizational and management skills
are diffused among members.

A group member becomes an internal GP when others begin to recognize his
or her capacity to promote and facilitate group action. Given the dynamic
nature of the participatory process, the training of internal GPs cannot
be a static once-only activity. It should cover both group dynamics and
practical skills needed to improve the rural poor's capacity to implement
and manage their own activities.

9. Participatory training

To be successful, participatory projects need to adopt a participatory approach
to training. Conventional training methods are didactic and often paternalistic:
the trainer views the trainee as a near-empty vessel to be filled with knowledge.
Participatory training is based, instead, on an active dialogue between
trainer and trainee that constitutes a learning experience for both.

In participatory projects, the main objectives of training are:

to improve the economic and social conditions of the poor

to help participants to become active and productive group members and
leaders

to encourage GPs and supporting staff to adapt conventional training
methods to meet the real needs of the poor

to stimulate all those involved in the project to develop more appropriate
training methods and materials.

The "target groups" of training are group members, project staff
(including group promoters), supporting government and NGO staff, and local
leaders and other influential people. Training should be pragmatic and based
on solving immediate and recognized problems. Therefore, it must be on-going
training, a continuous process implemented within the context of any project
action to improve the production, income and social conditions of the participants.

Trainers must have practical experience. They should include group promoters
and other project staff, technical officers of delivery agencies, experienced
small scale producers as well as successful groups that train and motivate
others.

Training of participants

Training benefits

PPP groups in Zambia have a busy training schedule. Each project district organizes one residential course a year for group leaders and as many mobile workshops as the extension system can provide. Training has had a positive impact on farming practices. "The most important thing we have learned is about agriculture," reported one group secretary, recalling the days when farmers waited until maize plants had grown before adding fertilizer to the soil. The secretary took a course at the district farmer training centre on crop production, savings and group management. On her return she shared what she had learnt with other members. Now the group has requested training in the extraction of groundnut oil, which they plan to sell.

Training topics for project participants should include:

General participatory techniques that enhance member participation
in decision making through efficient group formation and action. Subjects
include group dynamics, leadership, planning of group activities, savings
and credit, accounting, enterprise management, monitoring and evaluation,
and negotiating and bargaining. Training might also centre on eliminating
social problems such as alcohol abuse and gambling.

Specialized training tailored to the type of project as well as to
specific needs identified by the groups. This includes training in crop
production, small livestock development, soil and water conservation, small-scale
aquaculture, forestry and group marketing, and non-farm activities such
as crop processing, weaving, tailoring, pottery, and production of house-building
materials or handicrafts.

Training in home and community development, especially for women.
Subjects include health, sanitation, first aid, nutrition and child care,
as well as management leadership and village development.

Other recommended training topics include legal matters (such as tenancy
rights), mortgaging, wages, and banking and administrative procedures. Useful
information on these topics is frequently not communicated to the poor.
Group literacy classes for adult women and men help them to analyse their
problems and plan actions, and reduce their dependency upon literate villagers
or group members.

Training for project staff

Training of the project coordinator, GPs and other project staff aims at
introducing them to participatory approaches and procedures and fostering
motivation and team spirit. It should teach basic technical skills needed
for group development, and experiment with innovative ways of poverty eradication.

The implementing agency should train the project coordinator in these topics
as early as possible. GPs need, in particular, management training in production
planning and implementation, transfer of appropriate technology, marketing,
communication techniques, leadership, team-building, recordkeeping and
writing of reports.

An inception training workshop of at least three weeks should be given in
or near the project area for GPs, other project staff and key officials
of the delivery system. It is advisable to invite twice as many candidate
GPs as needed initially in the project in order to secure a reserve pool
of these field workers. The curriculum should be pragmatic and include work
experience presentations by participants.

After this inception training, GPs need initial field training of 2-3 months,
a period that coincides with the start of their field activities in the
project area. They should learn as a team to prepare and carry out village
and household surveys, to solve problems met in the field and to cooperate
with delivery agencies.

Follow-up training of GPs should be carried out through monthly meetings
to evaluate team performance, to identify and solve work problems and to
prepare field workshops and refresher courses in such subjects as innovative
income-raising activities and credit schemes. The GPs might also collaborate
in issuing a project newsletter and take part in exchange visits to other
participatory projects.

Training of government and NGO staff

Government and NGO support staff also need training to familiarize themselves
with participatory approaches and procedures, the difficulties encountered
by the rural poor in gaining access to delivery agencies, and the role these
agencies should play in helping solve the problems of the poor. In many
instances, these officials may need to be "de-trained" and then
re-trained through an on-going exchange of experiences and views.

10. Participatory research, monitoring and evaluation

Research, monitoring and evaluation are essential functions of any development
project. Properly performed, they help donors, governments and implementation
agencies to identify project constraints and beneficiary needs, to monitor
progress toward project objectives and to evaluate results. Since one of
the main aims of participatory projects is to develop the rural poor's own
capacity to identify and solve their problems, they must be involved directly
in all phases of this process.

In PPP, research, monitoring and evaluation are intended primarily to meet
the information needs of the participants and solve concrete problems they
confront. The approach is viewed as a participatory learning tool that helps
groups to strengthen their problem-solving capacity and achieve self-reliance.

Participatory action research

A basic tenet of the PPP approach is that, in planning and implementing
participatory projects, field investigators should involve the rural poor
in collecting and analysing information on social and economic conditions,
on constraints affecting the poor and their organizations, and on the community
as a whole. Only through participatory action research of this kind can
the project learn about the problems of the poor and help them to find solutions.

Initially, the main research objectives are to select the project area and
- within these, village-clusters - to identify the rural poor and to determine
whether they are involved in development efforts, especially through existing
local organizations. Research is then conducted to assess potentials for
group formation, to plan and implement group activities and to develop appropriate
training programmes.

During project implementation, ongoing participatory research aims at solving
concrete problems and providing data for field workshops, developing and
sustaining a workable participatory monitoring and evaluation system, carrying
out case studies of rural poor groups and developing appropriate technologies
for project participants.

Tools for participatory action research are simple household and village
surveys conducted periodically, mainly by GPs in collaboration with participants.
These surveys will help to establish economic and social benchmarks, which
highlight the status of the beneficiaries in the initial phase of the project
and allow progress to be evaluated.

Group discussions with villagers are useful in familiarizing project staff
with the local people and their situation, and in enhancing awareness of
the villagers' problems. Part of this action research is a careful and systematic
recording of GPs' findings, particularly of steps taken by participants
to form their groups.

Participatory monitoring

Participatory monitoring is a process of collecting, processing and sharing
data to assist project participants in decision making and learning. The
purpose is to provide all concerned with information as to whether group
objectives are being achieved. Implementing agencies and donors also require
data on progress toward overall project objectives.

A workable participatory monitoring system should, therefore, be based on
a multi-level approach that harmonizes the different - and often competing
- information needs of those involved in the project and provides for regular
meetings at each level to make use of the data generated.

The main tools for participatory monitoring are:

At group level, group log-books, meetings, ledgers and accounts

At GP level, GP diaries and log-books, and meetings to monitor group
progress

At project level, project records and accounts, sample surveys, field
visits, preparation of periodic progress reports and GP meetings to review
their progress

At donor level, external monitoring and workshops.

The information gathered should indicate shortfalls in project performance
and discrepancies between objectives planned and those achieved. This information
will be used in modifying project objectives and rectifying project deficiencies.

Participatory monitoring should be conceived from the beginning as part
of the group learning and action process. This means that baseline and benchmark
data, as well as data on inputs, outputs, work plans and progress made in
group development, should be recorded, discussed and kept for later use.

Groups should keep records of their meetings and of major problems discussed,
decisions made and actions undertaken, using elementary standardized forms
contained in simple log-books. Each group should also learn a minimum of
bookkeeping in order to record their loans and savings. The systematic collection
of data on loans and repayment, in conjunction with simple cost-benefit
analyses, gives essential insights into the capacity of groups to manage
their affairs and improve their conditions.

Participatory evaluation

On-going evaluation is the systematic analysis by beneficiaries and project
staff of monitored information, with a view to enabling them to adjust or
redefine project objectives, policies, institutional arrangements, resources
and activities, where necessary.

The main evaluation tools are:

GPs' log-books summarizing group records, and diaries containing personal
observations on the process and results of beneficiary participation

monthly review and evaluation meetings of GPs

quarterly group and inter-group evaluation sessions

newsletters in the local language based on information provided by the
groups

evaluation studies and surveys

field workshops that allow participants, project staff and concerned
outsiders to assess the project fully.

These tools should all be used to promote a constant two-way flow of information
between groups and the project staff.

The groups should also be encouraged to evaluate the performance of the
delivery system. This helps groups to "talk back" to the delivery
system by, for example, focusing on shortcomings and identifying bottlenecks.
The results may then be brought up in field workshops.

Evaluation done in this way stimulates critical awareness and motivation
for better group self-management. Self-evaluation results need to be presented
systematically to other project participants at local and higher levels.

Evaluation should include not only tangible and measurable results of group
activities but, as much as possible, spill-over benefits that facilitate
the group members' economic, social and human development. It should consider,
for example, progress in acquiring verbal and writing skills, in presenting
ideas logically and clearly, in overcoming timidity when dealing with officials
and in overcoming anti-social habits, such as excessive drinking and gambling.

11. Project self-sustainability

Participatory projects aim at building self-sustaining grassroots rural
organizations by promoting groups of the rural poor and by influencing service
delivery agencies to direct more of their resources through these organizations
to the poor. Experience has shown that this institution building process
normally takes time. It involves the introduction of a participatory learning
process that gradually teaches the rural poor organizational, group problem-solving
and leadership skills which they did not have before.

The GP obviously plays a pivotal role in initiating and empowering this
learning process in its initial phases. Yet it is equally critical to recognize
when groups have reached a point of self-sustainability and no longer require
special assistance from the project.

Indicators of group self-reliance

Sierra Leone success story

Three years after the Sierra Leone PPP project terminated, small farmers groups it helped to form were actively involved in rural development. "Participation in group activities has actually grown as non-PPP members see the benefits of group work", an FAO consultant reported after a visit to the project action area. "The PPP villages have undertaken a number of community development projects, raising money to build schools, bridges and grain stores. Some groups have branched out into palm oil, groundnut and vegetable production." The visitor found that while the groups no longer had regular access to credit, they continued to save, investing their capital in construction projects and in small businesses. The groups still kept record books and had adopted a participatory monitoring and evaluation system. Two former GPs had formed rural workers' associations that met regularly with government extensionists and local leaders to discuss project ideas and to coordinate the delivery of farm inputs.

Project staff can use a number of indicators to measure the progress made
by groups. These include:

Regularity of group meetings and level of member attendance.
These two indicators provide clear evidence of whether members are benefiting
from the learning process. When regular meetings and high attendence continue
in the absence of the GP, the group is obviously well on the way to achieving
self-reliance.

Shared leadership and member participation in group decision making.
Groups that share leadership reponsibilities and in which there is a high
level of participation in decision-making tend to learn more quickly and
develop a broader leadership base than those in which leadership and decision
making responsibilities are monopolized by a minority. The latter groups
tend to be much more vulnerable to leadership crises and less able to maintain
long-term self-sustainability.

Continuous growth in group savings. The ability of the group
to accumulate savings is a key measure of members' faith in and financial
commitment to group activities. It is also a good indicator of the profitability
of the group activity and of the group's financial ability to weather risk
and adversity. Groups which do not save, or save very little, are less likely
to achieve self-sustainability quickly.

High rates of loan repayment. A group's capacity to repay loans
on time is another indicator of group financial discipline, as well of the
profitbility of its income-generating activity.

Group problem-solving. The ability of the group to solve problems
and take initiatives to achieve its self-development in the absence of the
GP indicates members' confidence in their own capabilities.

Effective links with development services. The self-reliance
of a group also depends on its ability to maintain links with government
and NGO development services, in the absence of project staff.

Monitoring progress towards self-sustainability

"Graduation day"

The Small Farmers Development Programme in Nepal developed guidelines for judging whether participatory groups have progressed to the point where they no longer require special assistance. The programme identified as possible candidates for "graduation" small farmer groups that had been established for more than 10 years and were located near development agencies. Within these groups, "graduate" members were those who had accumulated produtive assets, had stable off-farm employment, were meeting the basic needs of their family through their own net income and had a good "credit rating".

It is important to teach the group how to monitor its progress towards self-sustainability.
Group PMOE systems should be geared to monitoring this progress using their
own simple set of ranking indicators, perhaps based on the indicators outlined
above. Indicators can be developed through group meetings in which all members
try, by consensus, to rank their group's progress according to a number
of selected self-reliance variables, such as regularity of meetings, attendence
and savings growth, assigning scores for good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory
performance.

GPs may also adopt a group self-reliance monitoring system, perhaps based
on a review of group record books. At the project level, monitoring may
be carried out through frequent GP meetings in which group-by-group progress
is reviewed, and through periodic sample surveys conducted with randomly
selected groups.

12. Costs and benefits

The cost-effectiveness of the participatory approach is, at present, difficult
to determine. This is because economic and social parameters are only partly
adequate in measuring costs and benefits. The assessment of benefits is
however, very important: it indicates economic and financial viability to
government decision makers and planners who see development predominantly
from an economic point of view.

In reviewing costs and benefits, it should be remembered that the very essence
of the participatory approach is promoting the self-reliance of the rural
poor. This implies low and decreasing recurrent costs, and increasing cost-recovery
by the project participants. Although a participatory process needs some
"start-up" external aid, the basic objective is that the process
becomes self-propelling as soon as possible.

Costs of participatory projects

A typical PPP project lasts three years, with a donor contribution averaging
$210,000. This contribution covers most of the total project cost. Since
PPP began in 1982, each participatory project has formed, on average, 90
groups with total membership of 1,098 people. Including group members' families,
total beneficiaries per project were at least 6,588 people.

Total external aid costs averaged, therefore, $63 per year per group member
and less than $11 per beneficiary (i.e. the group member's dependants).
While average cost per participant and beneficiary is high in the initial
phase of the project, it declines rapidly as project staff are trained and
as groups become more self-reliant. Average beneficiary costs in larger
participatory projects would be lower due to economies of scale.

The incremental costs of including participatory elements in a larger project
are low in relation to those of other technical components. Thanks to economies
in administration and coordination, the incremental cost per beneficiary
of including a participatory component would be lower than in smaller scale
PPP projects. Incorporating participatory elements would involve the following
extra costs:

Financing a small number of locally recruited field workers who act
for a limited period as group promoters (if selected from extension staff,
they will need special training in group formation and action only)

Inception and training workshops on the participatory approach and procedures,
and yearly follow-up evaluation workshops

Training for participants and project staff in people's participation,
particularly group dynamics and other topics directly related to group formation
and action

Participatory socio-economic research and participatory monitoring and
evaluation covering group formation, action, performance and constraints.

The cost of adding these elements would be balanced by the improved design
of the project and, in the long run, by its economic and social benefits.
In some cases, extra budgetary allocations might not be needed to fund participatory
elements - it may be sufficient to reallocate existing funds and staff.

Benefits

A letter from the rural poor

More than 1,200 PPP group members in Sri Lanka and Zambia wrote to FAO in appreciation of the assistance they had received through the People's Participation Programme. "It is impossible to quantify all the benefits we have derived from PPP", said the letter from Sri Lanka, signed by 1,100 small farmers. "Now there is unity among the members of our groups. We work together in land preparation, cultivation of crops, weed control and repairing houses and wells. Thanks to our training programmes, joint purchase and use of inputs and access to credit, our income has increased. There is a marked decrease in alcoholism, gambling and other wasteful habits. We execute health programmes, are tackling our marketing problems and are trying to solve our land ownership problems as well. "We strongly believe that through organized action based on PPP principles, poverty and social injustice can be overcome." The Zambian groups listed similar benefits: access to fertilizer, seed, ploughs and oxen, improvements in farming methods, higher savings and better family nutrition.

Do the benefits of participation outweigh the costs? There is no easy answer
to this question: the benefits of participation are difficult to assess,
primarily because they take many forms, are often difficult to quantify
or evaluate, and may take several years to manifest themselves.

While data are still fragmentary, there is sufficient evidence to show that
PPP's benefits are significant. These benefits can be measured from two
perspectives, that of individual participants and that of society in general.
Benefits to participants include:

Increased food production. PPP groups have achieved notable increases
in food crop and meat production. In Ghana, for example, groups' maize output
per hectare is 20 percent higher than that of non-participating farmers.
Similar results have been recorded in Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Kenya.

Higher net family incomes. Although income data is notoriously
difficult to collect, proxy indicators such as high PPP group loan repayment
rates, rising levels of group savings and visible improvements in participants'
housing conditions point towards increased net family incomes.

Increased employment. Production technologies employed by PPP
groups tend to be low-cost and labour intensive. The most common indicator
of greater rural employment opportunities is the participants' increased
output per hectare, which generates demand for more farm labour.

Higher rates of saving. Savings mobilized by PPP group members
may appear low to outsiders. But the per capita savings registered in PPP
projects - e.g. $21 in Kenya, $39 in Swaziland and $40 in Zimbabwe - represent
a major achievement by rural people who, previously, had no savings at all.

Acquisition of new skills. A clear benefit emerging from PPP
evaluations is the acquisition by participants of technical, organizational
and leadership skills. Groups have proven to be an ideal learning environment,
providing opportunities for discussion, problem-solving and the exchange
of new ideas.

Benefits for society as a whole include:

Creation of "zero-cost" receiving systems. Perhaps
the most important benefit of PPP is the creation of new types of rural
service receiving systems that become self-propelling and require little
or no outside subsidy support. For delivery systems, the provision of financial,
extension and other development services to organized small farmers is more
cost-efficient than traditional methods. For example, group credit and savings
arrangements greatly reduce financial transaction costs to banks, while
higher loan recovery rates produce significant cost-savings for governments.

Building of rural community infrastructure at low-cost. Groups
in all PPP projects have initiated community improvement activities, from
construction of primary schools to village electrification. Since labour
and most materials for these activities are contributed free of charge by
group members, such infrastructure is built and maintained at minimum cost
to government.

Strengthening of rural institutions. Many rural institutions,
such as cooperatives, do not function efficiently because members have little
scope for participation in decision making. As PPP groups link up with these
organizations, they stimulate greater participation and improvements in
organizational performance, reducing the need for government support.

13. Replicating the PPP approach

The decision on whether or not to replicate a pilot participatory project
depends on a number of factors. These include the extent to which groups
organized under the pilot project have reached a satisfactory level of maturity
or self-sustainability, whether a well-trained cadre of group promoters
and project staff exists, and whether government and donor support is forthcoming.

Replication can be pursued in one of three ways:

through expansion of project activities in adjacent areas

through multiplication, i.e. the launching of similar projects in other
areas of the country

through the introduction of participatory components in larger-scale
rural development projects and programmes.

In all cases, strategies for replication need to be carefully designed,
taking into account all of the above factors as well as such considerations
as the geographic, economic and social conditions of the proposed project
area, the type of project intervention planned, experiences accumulated
from ongoing participatory development efforts and the cost effectiveness
of the planned intervention.

Project expansion/multiplication

A participatory project should be conceived as the first phase in a longer
development process. Therefore it is usually necessary to prepare - as early
as possible before a project terminates - a flexible plan for a second phase.
The data required for this exercise should be obtained partly from an independent
evaluation, but mainly from the project's own monitoring and evaluation
system.

Recognizing the right to organize

A primary condition for the promotion of rural people's participation is the removal of barriers to their association in organizations of their choice. This calls for the ratification and enforcement by governments of International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions and recommendations on the role of rural workers organizations in social and economic development. ILO Convention No. 141 calls on governments to give rural workers "every encouragement" to develop, on a voluntary basis, "free and viable organizations". ILO Recommendation No. 127 defines a cooperative as a voluntary, democratically controlled and independent organization that is expected to become an instrument through which members are able to participate in decisions at higher levels. ILO Recommendation No. 149 calls for "active encouragement" of rural workers organizations and recommends that they "be independent and voluntary in character" and "free from all interference, coercion or repression".

In preparing for expansion or multiplication of participatory projects,
planners should consider several basic points. First, expansion carries
with it the risk of diluting key features of the ongoing participatory project.
Planners should seek, therefore, to consolidate progress made in establishing
groups and inter-group federations and in redirecting the services of delivery
agencies. Without this consolidation, the expansion phase of the project
could entail a decline in group activities.

New areas to be covered by the project during its expansion or multiplication
phase should be adjacent to the original project area. This facilitates
project management and supervision, as well as cooperation among existing
and potential project participants and service agencies. Expansion and multiplication
also implies a need for more field staff, particularly group promoters.
GPs should be carefully selected and trained, preferably by senior group
promoters who performed well during the project's first phase. Inter-group
associations can play an important role in project expansion by assisting
in recruitment of internal cadres, training new groups and federations,
and disseminating improved technology.

To establish fruitful linkages in the expansion phase, it is indispensable
to obtain information on existing groups, people's organizations and public
and NGO development agencies in the new project areas, and ongoing projects
and programmes with which the expanded project could cooperate.

Finally, in planning expansion and multiplication, various operations involved
in the identification and preparation of the original project can be streamlined,
thanks to the experience accumulated. For example, data collection can be
more selective as considerable information will already be available. Incorporating
participatory elements in large scale rural development programmes PPP projects
are not pursued as ends in themselves, but rather to demonstrate to donor,
government and NGO decision makers the benefits and cost-effectiveness of
using group-based participatory approaches. These decision makers are best
convinced by concrete results achieved in the field. Therefore, results
must be communicated to them effectively.

The local and national level coordinating committees described in Chapter
6 play a key role as forums for discussion and exchange of views. However,
other strategies may also be needed. They include:

Influencing policy makers. Policy makers of national and NGO
development agencies should be encouraged to participate in dialogues on
the need for the adoption of policies favourable to participatory development.
These policies include appropriate legislation to promote rural people's
organizations, including freedom of association as well as reorientation
of delivery systems towards the needs of the rural poor. Other policies
should promote full integration of women in development, decentralization
of decision making, planning and resource allocation, and expansion of non-agricultural
employment.

Influencing development planners and administrators. Many of
the development agencies involved in implementation of large-scale programmes
and projects may have little or no experience in participatory development.
Development planners and implementation agencies can be influenced through
meetings and field workshops, periodic informal exchanges of views, briefings
on participatory projects, and incorporation of participatory issues in
project identification, preparation, appraisal and evaluation missions.

Influencing local leaders. The support of village leaders is
often crucial to a participatory project. This support should be obtained
through meetings and project initiation workshops aimed at convincing local
traditional and administrative leaders that the project is in their own
short- and long-term interest.

Influencing donors and international development agencies. The
support of donors, development agencies and international financial institutions
is essential for widespread adoption of the participatory approach. Efforts
to obtain this support should aim, first, at convincing those donors and
agencies that support participatory projects to continue their assistance.
Other donors, development banks and agencies should be influenced through
policy dialogues and field workshops to support the participatory approach.
It will be crucial to demonstrate the achievements of participatory projects,
through effective monitoring and evaluation systems and case studies on
their benefits and cost-effectiveness.